Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-02-1989
Reported in : [1990]181ITR1(Ker)
..... the company tothe sons of the assessee could be considered as dividend in the hands ofthe assessee. it is certainly not dividend as understood in general law orunder section 205 of the companies act. in the decision in kantilal manilal v. cit : [1961]41itr275(sc) , the supreme court observed that (atp. 278) : ''dividend' in its ordinary meaning is a distributive ..... for the benefit of, the assessee, a shareholder. the other shareholders are the mother and grandfather of the payees. in the circumstances, we hold that section 2(22)(e) of the act is not applicable to the facts of the case and that the burden is on the revenue to prove that the payment was made on behalf of, or ..... , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law, facts, substance and reality in holding that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the act were not attracted in this case ?'7. we heard counsel. any dividend declared by a company or distributed or paid by it within the meaning of sub .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-06-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1059
..... of punjab air 1952 sc 214 : (1952 cri lj 1131), there can be no hard and fast rule as regards the compliance with the requirements of section 145 of the evidence act and what is required is that the witness must be treated fairly and be afforded a reasonable opportunity of explaining the contradictions after his attention has been drawn ..... . in krishnan nair v. state of kerala 1971 ker lt 326 a division bench of this court had occasion to consider the scope of the application of section 145 of the evidence act. after quoting from the observations of the supreme court in tahsildar singh's case (1959 cri lj 1231) (supra), the division bench held that the investigating ..... officer also. instead, he was made to swear generally that they said 'as stated in exts. p2, p3 and p7'. neither section 162 of the code of criminal procedure nor section 145 of the evidence act was complied with in form. but it cannot be said that there was no compliance in substance or that prejudic resulted. this court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-07-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ697
..... desisted from employing the expression such as 'with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property' in section 47 of the act. if there is no prohibition of entry to or on a ground belonging to government or appropriated to public purpose, there is likelihood of making use of those ..... untimely hour and as he could not explain his presence there at the odd hour, both the courts below were justified in holding that he has committed offence under section 47 of the act. in our view naseema's case 1983 ker lt 579 : (1983 cri lj noc 199) has not correctly laid down the law.there is no merit ..... the revision petitioner could not give any reasonable explanation for his presence there at the untimely hour, the inescapable conclusion is that he has committed an offence under section 47 of the act. if he had any reasonable excuse for his presence, the position would be different. for example, if a person takes shelter in the veranda of a public .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-08-1989
Reported in : 1989CriLJ2482
..... appointed if the state government or central government so choose. the definition of public prosecutor as given under section 2(u) cr. p.c. also is relevant, which runs thus:2(u) 'public prosecutor' means any person appointed under section 24, and includes any person acting under the directions of a public prosecutor. the above definition would show that the term public prosecutor ..... would include any person appointed under section 24 of the code. it is not specifically mentioned that the person appointed under sub .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-18-1989
Reported in : [1990]181ITR387(Ker)
..... referred by the appellate tribunal will be only academic.4. we proceed to consider whether the income-tax officer validly reopened the assessments under section 147(b) of the income-tax act for both the years. in considering the said question, the appellate tribunal adverted to the fact that the assessee had shown the receipts ..... on the sale of old rubber trees (if any) was not brought to tax in the original assessments made. the assessments were reopened under section 147(b) of the income-tax act. the reassessment proceedings were found to be invalid by the appellate assistant commissioner ; but sustained by the appellate tribunal for both the years. ..... finding of the tribunal that the income-tax officer had received information after the date of the original assessment justifying reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) of the income-tax act, 1961 ? (4) was the tribunal justified in its finding that the materials collected and relied upon by the assessing officer for arriving at .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-19-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ36
..... gave the fatal blow, each of the assailants including a and b is responsible for the murder as if it was committed by him alone.'section 34 has been enacted to meet a situation where members of a party acted in furtherance of the common intention of all but it was difficult to establish exactly the part played by each of them ..... to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention and that to invoke the aid of section 34 it must be shown that the criminal act complained against was done by one of the accused persons in the furtherance of the common intention of all. in ..... could be sustained. in mahbub shah v. emperor, air 1945 pc 118 : (46 cri lj 689) the privy council held that section 34 of the i.p.c. enacted a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act, that the essence of that liability was to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-22-1989
Reported in : [1990]182ITR30(Ker)
..... (c.) v. cit : [1985]151itr172(kar) , considering a similar question, held that the words 'any individual' and 'such individual is a partner' occurring in section 64(1) of the act do not include an individual who may be the karta of a hindu undivided family or any other person in his representative capacity but must be confined to ..... is a debatable question of law and, therefore, failure to disclose such income will not give jurisdiction to the income-tax officer to reopen the assessment under section 147(a) of the act. we held therein that the reopening of the assessment was invalid, relying upon the decisions of the supreme court in calcutta discount co. ltd. v. ito ..... been disclosed, the completed assessments of the same assessee for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1972-73 were also reopened on an earlier occasion under section 147(a) of the act on the ground that the assessee had not disclosed the share income of his wife from the partnership business in which the assessee was a partner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-25-1989
Reported in : [1990]182ITR107(Ker)
..... cit : [1984]149itr29(delhi) , at pages 35 and 36, stated as follows :'a cost to the assessee in the acquisition of the asset is thus clearly contemplated. the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code for the purpose of ascertaining whether the transfer of the tenancy rights which is a capital asset gives rise to a ..... capital gain for the purposes of the act. if the computation provisions cannot apply at all to a given case, then such a case could not be intended by the legislature to fall within the charging ..... in the acquisition of the tenancy rights, as to what is the 'cost of acquisition' or 'cost of improvement' for the purpose of computation of 'capital gains' under section 48. if the whole of the value of the capital asset transferred is brought to tax, then, what would be charged is the capital value of the asset and not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-28-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ100
..... or proved against him in any criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such person. in deciding what is said is 'compelled', his liability under section 132. evidence act will have to be taken into account. placing a man on trial for an offence on his own evidence alone is contrary to the traditions of justice in ..... justice. it is still more pitiable if an alleged confession made to a police officer spoken to by him is accepted as substantive evidence in violation of section 25 of the evidence act to convict him. there is not even a single item of oral or documentary evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that appellants are responsible ..... is a distinct one for which his trial along with the other persons is not warranted by the provisions of the code, section 319 has no application. so also the proviso to section 132 of the evidence act will have to be borne in mind. the answers which a witness shall be compelled to give while examined in court cannot .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-12-1989
Reported in : [1991]190ITR356(Ker)
..... ) and of the hyderabad bench in ito v. k. kami reddy (i. t. a. no. 1331 (hyd) of 1983). it also referred to the provisions of section 10(14) of the act. finally, after referring to the conflicting decisions of the various benches the appellate tribunal, in paragraph 10 of its order, referred to the observations of the president of ..... income-tax officer. he held that the incentive bonus was only part of the salary and so the assessees will be entitled only to the standard deduction under section 16(1) of the act. the appellate assistant commissioner accepted the plea of the asses-sees. he allowed 20% deduction. the assessees as well as the revenue appealed before the appellate ..... that the appellate tribunal had before it the different decisions of the various benches of the tribunal and the incentive bonus will broadly be covered by section 10(14) of the income-tax act and so it is not taxable at all. it is an error to say that the appellate tribunal found that the incentive bonus received by .....
Tag this Judgment!